agma 2001 - Search Results

Articles About agma 2001

There are many different gear rating methods in use today, and they can give substantially different results for any given gearset. This paper will make it easy to understand the choices and the impact the choices have on gearbox design. Eight standards are included - AGMA 2001; AGMA 6011; AGMA 6013; ISO 6336; API 613; API 617; API 672; and API 677. (Click HERE for the Appendix to this article).

I have a query (regarding) calculated gear life values. I would like to understand for what % of gear failures the calculated life is valid? Is it 1-in-100 (1% failure, 99% reliability) or 1-in-one-thousand (0.1% failure)?

One of the best ways to learn the ISO 6336 gear rating system is to recalculate the capacity of a few existing designs and to compare the ISO 6336 calculated capacity to your experience with those designs and to other rating methods. For these articles, I'll assume that you have a copy of ISO 6336, you have chosen a design for which you have manufacturing drawings and an existing gear capacity calculation according to AGMA 2001 or another method. I'll also assume that you have converted dimensions, loads, etc. into the SI system of measurement.

This is the third article in a series exploring the new ISO 6336 gear rating standard and its methods of calculation. The opinions expressed herein are htose of the author as an individual. They do not represent the opinions of any organization of which he is a member.

There exists an ongoing, urgent need for a rating method to assess micropitting risk, as AGMA considers it a "a very significant failure mode for rolling element bearings and gear teeth - especially in gearbox applications such as wind turbines."

I would appreciate if you could assist with a gear failure (occurring)
after just seven weeks in service, post installation. This driving gear
wheel has been installed in a medium-speed engine with backlash
present at four different positions; with additional backlash checked on
the mating surfaces. All backlash was found within (OEM)-recommended values. Please note included photos - it seems that the crack has started at the root fillet. Any comments would be appreciated.

This is a very exciting year for AGMA as the organization celebrates its 100-year anniversary. In addition to the anniversary, AGMA President Joe Franklin, jr., who has done an outstanding job at the
helm of AGMA for the last 25 years,
will retire, and we welcome in our new
AGMA President, Matt Croson, who will
lead us into the next 100 years. The centennial kicked off in October with a dinner at the AGMA Gear Expo in Detroit and will continue throughout 2016 with a number of exciting events scheduled to celebrate this milestone anniversary.

While the two have taught a variety of AGMA courses over
the years, without question their most popular courses are
Gear Failure Analysis (Errichello with longtime colleague Jane
Muller) and Gearbox CSI: Forensic Analysis of Gear & Bearing
Failures (Drago). Drago currently teaches Manufacturing &
Inspection (with AGMA instructor Joseph W. Lenski, Jr.) and
Gearbox System Design: The Rest of the Story - Everything but
the Gears and Bearings (with AGMA instructor Steve Cymbala)
as well.

A best practice in gear design is to limit the amount of backlash to a minimum value needed to accommodate
manufacturing tolerances, misalignments, and deflections, in order to prevent the non-driving side of the teeth to make contact and rattle. Industry standards, such as ANSI/AGMA 2002 and DIN3967, provide reference values of minimum backlash to be used in the gear design. However, increased customers' expectations in vehicle noise eduction have pushed backlash and allowable manufacturing tolerances to even lower limits. This is especially true in the truck market, where engines are quieter because they run at lower speeds to improve fuel economy, but they quite often run
at high torsional vibration levels. Furthermore, gear and shaft arrangements in truck transmissions have become more complex due to increased number of speeds and to improve efficiency. Determining the minimum amount of backlash is quite a challenge. This paper presents an investigation of minimum backlash values of helical gear teeth applied to a light-duty pickup truck transmission. An analytical model was developed to calculate backlash limits of each gear pair when not transmitting load, and thus susceptible to generate rattle noise, through different transmission power paths.
A statistical approach (Monte Carlo) was used since a significant number of factors affect backlash, such as tooth
thickness variation; center distance variation; lead; runout and pitch variations; bearing clearances; spline clearances; and shaft deflections and misalignments. Analytical results identified the critical gear pair, and power path, which was confirmed experimentally on a transmission. The approach presented in this paper can be useful to design gear pairs
with a minimum amount of backlash, to prevent double flank contact and to help reduce rattle noise to lowest levels.

I'd like to apologize to the dedicated people working on revisions to the AGMA 925 standard and the Technical Report ISO 15144-1, both of which deal with the issue of micropitting. In the
March/April issue of Gear Technology, we published an opinion piece in our Voices column that harshly criticized the methods for predicting micropitting outlined in ISO 15144-1.

The AGMA/ABMA Annual Meeting took place April 10-12 in St. Petersburg, Florida. Between committee meetings, networking opportunities and social events, many individuals in the gear industry were presented awards.

In todayâ€™s globalized manufacturing, all industrial products having dimensional constraints must undergo conformity specifications assessments on a regular basis. Consequently, (standardization) associated with GD&T (geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing) should be un-ambiguous and based on common, accepted rules. Of course gears - and their mechanical assemblies - are special items, widely present in industrial applications where
energy conversion and power transmission are involved.

The face load factor is one of the most important items for a gear strength calculation. Current standards propose formulae for face load factor, but they are not always appropriate. AGMA 927 proposes a simpler and quicker algorithm that doesn't require a contact analysis calculation. This paper explains how this algorithm can be applied for gear rating procedures.

So there is little chance that they need the same software to assist with their work. Gone are the days when companies wrote their own code and process engineers thumbed the same tattered reference book.

The geometry of the bevel gear is quite complicated to describe mathematically, and much of the overall surface topology of the tooth flank is dependent on the machine settings and cutting method employed. AGMA 929-A06 â€” Calculation of Bevel Gear Top Land and Guidance on Cutter Edge Radius â€” lays out a practical approach for predicting the approximate top-land thicknesses at certain points of interest â€” regardless of the exact machine settings that will generate the tooth form. The points of interest that AGMA 929-A06 address consist of toe, mean, heel, and point of involute lengthwise curvature. The following method expands upon the concepts described in AGMA 929-A06 to allow the user to calculate not only the top-land thickness, but the more general case as well, i.e. â€” normal tooth thickness anywhere along the face and profile of the bevel gear tooth. This method does not rely on any additional machine settings; only basic geometry of the cutter, blank, and teeth are required to calculate fairly accurate tooth thicknesses. The tooth thicknesses are then transformed into a point cloud describing both the convex and concave flanks in a global, Cartesian coordinate system. These points can be utilized in any modern computer-aided design software package to assist in the generation of a 3D solid model; all pertinent tooth macrogeometry can be closely simulated using this technique. A case study will be presented evaluating the accuracy of the point cloud data compared to a physical part.

No, not that president! I mean Matt Croson, the new president
of the American Gear Manufacturers Association, who
started in June and has been busy getting to know the gear
industry and AGMA's members.

This issue, GT Extras brings you "Heat Treat and Induction Hardening of Industrial Gears," a treasure trove of heat treating related technical articles and a call for help in preparation for AGMA's 100th anniversary.

Iâ€™ve just come back from the AGMA annual meeting in Napa, California, where I had a great time visiting with friends and colleagues in the gear industry. As always, the annual meeting was a great opportunity to network and meet with other AGMA members.

When I first met the leaders of
the gearing industry in April 2016
at AGMA's 100th Anniversary
Celebration, I did my best imitation
of Joe Namath, who famously
predicted a Super Bowl victory for
his New York Jets: I guaranteed we
would reach our 101st year!

The definition is pretty straightforward: An association is an organization of persons having a common interest. Basically, it's a group that shares a purpose or mission that exists for the mutual advancement of its members.

Gear Expo 2017 is your best opportunity to expand your knowledge, get answers to your technical questions and solve your toughest manufacturing challenges. The reason is quite simple. Gear Expo provides you with the greatest collection of gear expertise, know-how and experience you can find.

There is so much more to Gear Expo than gears or the machinery that makes them. That's because it takes much, much more to make a finished gear than even the most sophisticated machine. And it is exhibitors who are part of the "much, much, more" that are addressed in this article.

A reader asks: We are currently revising our gear standards and tolerances, and a few problems with the new standard AGMA 2002-C16 have arisen. Firstly, the way to calculate the tooth thickness tolerance seems to need a "manufacturing profile shift coefficient" that isn't specified in the standard; neither is another standard referred to for this coefficient. This tolerance on tooth thickness is needed later to calculate the span width as well as the pin diameter. Furthermore, there seems to be no tolerancing on the major and minor diameters of a gear.

AGMA Sets Up Shop in Living Laboratory of the Midwest. Columbus, Ohio recently surpassed Indianapolis as the second largest city in the Midwest behind Chicago, according to the United States Census Bureau. This could change come the
2020 census, but there's no denying
Buckeye Nation is going places.

Summer never lasts as long as you want it to. By the time you read this, you'll be well into the hazy, lazy days, and the season will be gone before you know it. That means you're running out of time to make plans to attend our industry's most important event. Of course, I'm talking about Gear Expo (October 24 - 26) and the AGMA Fall Technical Meeting (October 22 - 24), both of which will take place in Columbus,
OH.

It's nice to see old friends. It's also advantageous to make new ones. Gear Expo has always been a family reunion of sorts, but it's first and foremost an opportunity to show off the latest and greatest technologies that are impacting the gear industry today. With this in mind, Gear Technology recently spoke with those responsible for putting the Fall Technical Meeting (FTM) and Gear Expo 2013 together in Indianapolis.

Large, multi-segmented girth gears do not behave like the relatively compact, rigid, monolithic structures we typically envision when discussing gear manufacturing. Girth gears are very large, non-rigid structures that require special care during the machining of individual mating segments as well as the assembled gear blank itself.

More than 100 years ago, gear
manufacturers were facing
a significant challenge from
industry. The incredible advances in
industrialization and transportation that
occurred at the turn of the 20th century
resulted in incredible growth for gear
makers, but there were significant technical
issues. "The lack of process and product
standardization was a continuing
problem in all U.S. industry. The lack
of industry-wide gear standards meant
there were no standard gear tooth sizes,
ratings, quality definition or consistent
manufacturing methods" (Celebrating
100 Years of Gearing, pg. 22).

The major focus of the American Gear Manufacturers Association standards activity has been the accurate determination of a gearbox's ability to transmit a specified amount of power for a given amount of time. The need for a "level playing field" in the critical arena was one of the reasons the association was formed in the first place. Over the past 85 years, AGMA committees have spent countless hours "discussing" the best ways to calculate the rating of a gear set, often arguing vigorously over factors that varied the resulting answers by fractions of a percentage point. While all that "science" was being debated in test labs and conference rooms all over the country, out industry's customers were conducting their own experiments through the daily operation of gear-driven equipment of all types.

When you graduated from school and made your way into the world, you probably thought youâ€™d learned everything you needed to know to be successful. But those of us whoâ€™ve been out in the workforce for some time know that you
never stop learning.

The world is full of acronyms. At work, the inbox reveals e-mails from the AWEA, SAE, MPIF and AMT. On the weekends, Saturday mornings are consumed by activities involving the AYSO, PTA, YMCA or DMV. Itâ€™s a struggle to determine what organization does what and why we should care in the first
place.

Industrial gear standards have been used to support reliability through the specification of requirements for
design, manufacturing and verification.
The consensus development of an
international wind turbine gearbox
standard is an example where gear
products can be used in reliable
mechanical systems today. This has
been achieved through progressive
changes in gear technology, gear
design methods and the continual
development and refinement of gearbox
standards.

As the international business community grows closer together, the
need for understanding differences between national and international
gear rating standards becomes increasingly important for U.S. gear
manufacturers competing in the world market.

The organizers of Gear Expo 2007 promise to combine the most popular features of shows past with some innovations for this yearâ€™s attendees. By the time the show closes on October 10, the association hopes its targeted 175 exhibitors walk away with new insights leading to profitability and renewed contacts.

"One of the reasons AGMA has been
successful over our 93-year history is
that the associationâ€™s agenda, programs
and activities reflect the voices of our members," says Joe T. Franklin, Jr., AGMA President.

The AGMA Fall Technical Meeting
provides an opportunity to share ideas
with others on the design, analysis,
manufacturing and application of gears,
gear drives, and related products, as well
as associated processes and procedures.

At a time when there are many pressures on the Gear Industry and its representative Association, the
American Gear Manufacturers Association, it seems particularly appropriate that Gear Technology - The
Journal of Gear Manufacturing appears. AGMA is particularly pleased to have the opportunity to write the first editorial for this magazine.

Standards are unlike gears themselves: mundane, but complex, ubiquitous and absolutely vital. Standards are a lingua franca, providing a common language with reference points for evaluating product reliability and performance for manufacturers and users. The standards development process provides a scientific forum for discussion of product design, materials and applications, which can lead to product improvement. Standards can also be a powerful marketing tool for either penetrating new markets or protecting established ones.

AGMA and members of the Metal Powder Industries Federation (MPIF) are three years into a joint project to develop specifications and an information sheet on rating powder metal gears. According to committee vice chairman Glen A. Moore of Burgess-Norton Mfg. Co., the first phase of the project, the publication of AGMA Standard "6009-AXX, Specifications for Powder Metallurgy Gears," should be completed in late 1996 or early 1997.

AGMA has an excellent Training School for Gear Manufacturing. It's a great product providing a great service to the gear industry. Thus far we've educated 117 employees from 71 companies; students range from new hires with no experience to company presidents. Essentially every class since December, 1992, has been sold out.

With all the heated debate and hoopla surrounding ISO 9000 certification, everyone seems to have an opinion about whether to sign up. Executives in the gear industry are flooded with information and ideas that often seem at odds. Gear Technology asked AGMA executive director Joe T. Franklin, Jr. to give an industry perspective on the pros and cons of ISO 9000 certification.

Long-time readers of these pages will know that I have always felt strongly about the subject of professional education. There's nothing more important for an individual's career development than keeping up with current technology. likewise, there's nothing more important that a company can do for itself and it employees than seeing to it they have the professional education they need. Giving people the educational tools they need to do their jobs is a necessary ingredient for success.

Who wants or needs technical details about gearing? Who cares about it? Three out of every four people who are reading this magazine make up at least 75% of those who have an interest in the subject. The members of AGMA, EUROTRANS, JGMA and JSIM have an interest. All the people attending the Gear Expo in Detroit have an interest. Clearly, however, the people with the most pressing interest in our industry are our customers, the end users of gear products. The unfortunate reality, though, is that in many cases, these customers don't even know that's what they want.

Another year, another AGMA Fall Technical Conference. But this is no ho-hum event. Not when every year, the conference attracts some of the greatest mechanical engineering minds on the planet, along with representatives of the worldâ€™s greatest manufacturing entities. And who knowsâ€”perhaps one day there will be an extraterrestrial contingentâ€”the science is that good. And all of it readily applicable to real-world manufacturing.

The American Gear Manufacturers Association (AGMA) is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to write all U.S. standards on gearing. However, in response to the growing interest in a global marketplace, AGMA became involved with the International Standards Organization (ISO) several years ago, first as an observer in the late 1970s and then as a participant, starting in the early 1980s. In 1993, AGMA became Secretariat (or administrator) for Technical Committee 60 of ISO, which administers ISO gear standards development.

A few months ago at the AGMA management seminar, I was surprised by the feverish note taking that went on at a presentation on marketing. The sight reminded me that while many of us in the gear industry are good engineers, designers, and mangers, we are often not as familiar - or comfortable - with less concrete concepts, such as marketing.

Five years of effort by AGMA came to fruition in January with the publishing of a report from the Department of Commerce. This "National Security Assessment of the U.S. Gear Industry" indicates that if serious measures are not taken, the gear industry's future is in jeopardy. It also sets the tone for confronting major challenges now looming large in our industry.

For the last few years, the market has been tough for the U.S. gear industry. That statement will cause no one any surprise. The debate is about what to do. One sure sign of this is the enormous attention Congress and the federal government are now placing on "competitiveness."

A change has taken place within the industry that is going to have an enormous effect on the marketing, sales, and purchasing of gear manufacturing and related equipment. This change was the American Gear Manufacturers' Association, first biennial combination technical conference and machine tool minishow.

It is often easy for those outside of the gear industry to get the impression that nothing is changing in our business. After all, all illustrated bimonthly by the covers of this very journal the making of gears has been with us for centuries. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

AGMA introduced ANSI/AGMA 2015â€“2â€“A06â€”
Accuracy Classification System: Radial System for Cylindrical Gears, in 2006 as the first major rewrite of the
double-flank accuracy standard in over 18 years. This document explains concerns related to the use of
ANSI/AGMA 2015â€“2â€“A06 as an accuracy classification system and recommends a revised system that can be of more service to the gearing industry.

In Part I differences in pitting ratings between AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436:1986 were examined. In this part bending strength ratings are compared. All the standards base the bending strength on the Lewis equation; the ratings differ in the use and number of modification factors. A comprehensive design survey is carried out to examine practical differences between the rating methods presented in the standards, and the results are shown in graphical form.

The authors of last issue's article comparing AGMA, ISO and BS methods for Pitting Resistance Ratings are commended. Trying to compare various methods of rating gears is like hitting a moving target in a thick forest. The use of different symbols, presentations, terminology, and definitions in these standards makes it very difficult. But the greatest problem lies with the authors' use of older versions of these documents. ISO drafts and AGMA standards have evolved at the same time their work was accomplished and edited.

A study of AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436: 1986 methods for rating gear tooth strength and surface durability for metallic spur and helical gears is presented. A comparison of the standards mainly focuses on fundamental formula and influence factors, such as the load distribution factor, geometry factor, and others. No attempt is made to qualify or judge the standards other than to comment on the facilities or lack of them in each standard reviewed. In Part I a comparison of pitting resistance ratings is made, and in the subsequent issue, Part II will deal with bending stress ratings and comparisons of designs.